Friday

Donald Trump's impeachment was right - but it will help the president win the US election

US President Donald Trump with wife Melania at an event
CC™ Opinionscope

Everyone seems really eager to confirm that impeaching president Trump was the right thing to do, but no one asks: what’s next?
Look no further than what Boris Johnson has achieved in the UK, and you will grasp what might be coming in the US. Impeachment is set to win Trump the 2020 presidential elections.
I hear you saying the US is different. The voting system, the priorities of the people, the partisan politics and, above all, the political culture. That’s absolutely right. But does that most certainly mean that the outcome must be different? I very much doubt it.
Impeaching President Trump may be the right thing to do in the presence of such compelling and substantial evidence of the abuse of power and obstruction of congress, and many more.
Most fact-driven people, with a little bit of sanity, know that Trump should have been removed from the White House long ago, let alone giving him the chance of being there from the beginning. But, just like Brexit, impeaching him now will be followed by an equally substantial rise of the far-right nationalism posing an unprecedented threat to the liberal democratic system across the western world.
The irony is that it all starts in the UK. The British majority unexpectedly voted for leaving the EU in February 2016, followed by Trump’s rather jaw-dropping victory in the elections held in November the same year. Now, Brexit will most likely be carried out officially by the beginning of 2020, and Trump (this time unsurprisingly) might win the elections at the end of the year.
The political shock and awe seen in 2016 will not be present this time because the impeachment saga will feasibly hit the Democrats and bolster Trump’s legacy.
Hilary Clinton, and now Nancy Pelosi, were not yet ready to understand what had really happened or how the electorate across the party divide perceive the liberalism they supposedly represent. And more importantly, how the right (far and central) is swiftly winning the hearts and minds of the liberal traditional voters.
This happens because the right extremism seems, sadly, on the right side of history.
Nancy Pelosi did the right thing by laying the case for Trump’s impeachment in the House of Representatives, just like Jeremy Corbyn when he promised a referendum to let British voters decide on the final withdrawal agreement with the EU. But whatever the morals over this, the right thing in politics sometimes doesn’t take you anywhere.
Pelosi understands that the impeachment won’t pass the Senate or do any harm to Trump’s election campaign. She might believe that the historic show was necessary to keep the Democratic Party united. British voters have seen this in the near past, and they all know it doesn’t end well.
The fundamental change that liberals look unable to grasp is the people’s scepticism of the liberal democratic order that has prevailed across the Atlantic and dominated the greater west since the end of the Second World War. Democracy, in its current worn-out condition, is broken. People are struggling, from Chile to Hong Kong, to find a more effective alternative that represents their 21st-century aspirations. It is a struggle that is likely to keep blistering throughout the next 50 years.
In the Anglo-Saxon world, people look at the socialists and democrats as the gatekeepers of this liberal democracy. Many of them don’t want to hear tirades about old fashioned socialism or free broadband. They seem more ready to give their ears to Boris Johnson’s false claims about recruiting 50,000 nurses and building 40 hospitals or his gawky battle cry of “make Britain great again.”
It might be the left-leaning columnists and another punch of loud socialists on Twitter that propped up Bernie Sanders’s candidacy as a serious concurrent for the presidency. But people in the US, too, don’t seem very fond of “democratic socialism” or Bernie’s “New Deal” politics.
Most of us on the liberal bank of the river didn’t yet figure out how Brexit has deeply changed the UK, and are still unable to envisage how Trump’s impeachment will turn the table in his favour. The populist “politics of lies”, on both sides of the Atlantic, was so effective and powerful as to convince many that having a Final Say referendum and impeaching Trump is a part of the “enemy of the people” plots against the “will of the people.”
The major shift from pure economics to culture in election campaigns resonated greatly with voters, and in the UK, had the whole political map redrawn. Labour and Lib Dem leaderships were smashed under the wheels of a new kind of wicked populist leaders who have no problem destroying the facts to feed their base with the untruths they want to hear.
After the red wall has collapsed, I can see the blue wall of America tottering from afar. In 2016, Donald Trump was able to win victories in the three blue wall states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In 2020 he might sweep across the Democrats’ heartlands and have the wall completely demolished.
The Democrats are effectively riding the same Labour and Lib Dem train and hoping to reach a different destination. Unfortunately for them, history works in a more predictable way.
The US and Europe have seen in the past five years far-right bigotry skyrocketing. This was just the beginning. The second phase, which is likely to unravel during 2020, will witness its real surge. And as liberal democracy was an Anglo-Saxon remedy to Europe after the war, this might well be the Anglo-Saxon epidemic that, in the absence of any credible resistance and leadership, might devour the whole continent.
Source: The Independent

Thursday

More representatives voted to impeach Trump than in either of the two previous impeachments of Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson

Clinton - Trump - Johnson - (Reuters/AP/PhotoQuest)
CC™ Factoid

President Donald Trump on Wednesday night became only the third president in US history to be impeached, with the House of Representatives backing articles of impeachment that charged him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

The House voted 230-197 in favor of an article accusing Trump of abuse of power and 229-198 in favor an article accusing him of obstruction of Congress. Both votes largely followed party lines.

Compared with the previous two impeachments in US history, Trump had more votes against him than either of his predecessors: Bill Clinton in 1998 and Andrew Johnson in 1868.
Clinton was impeached on charges related to a sexual-harassment lawsuit and for claims he lied under oath over his affair with the White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
He faced articles of impeachment of perjury and obstructing justice, both of which were passed by the House, with the following majorities:
  • Perjury: 228 votes to impeach, 206 against.
  • Obstruction of justice: 221 votes to impeach, 212 against.
Trump's two articles of impeachment each received slightly more support.
On a sheer numbers basis, Trump's impeachment was also more decisive than the vote against Johnson, who received 126 votes for his impeachment, 47 against, and 17 members who did not vote.
In the late 1800s, however, the US had only 37 states and the House was a smaller body. Proportionally, the vote against Johnson was stronger, with about 66% of representatives against him, compared with 52% against Trump.

Tuesday

The magic of Russell Wilson.....

CC™ Flashback - NFL Minute

Yes, he is the pride and joy of the Emerald City. Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson, has been making quite a name for himself since he stormed into the National Football League (NFL) three years ago.

Apart from going 17-1 in eighteen starts at home and winning the Superbowl in only his second season, plays like this (below) are what make him so special and destined for greatness in a game where success is not guaranteed, especially for a 'short' (not to mention black) quarterback. 

wilson

Thursday

How to scale up excellence in an organization

CC™ Business Insight

Stanford's Robert Sutton discusses the mind-set and strategies of companies that are most adept at building and spreading high standards.


Tuesday

A politician with some sense: Biden is lone Democrat to oppose federal marijuana legalization, cites 'gateway drug' concern

CC™ Politico 

Former Vice President Joe Biden said Saturday that more study is needed to determine whether marijuana is "a gateway drug," making him the only one of the leading Democratic presidential primary candidates to oppose legalization on the federal level. 

Biden – who said in 2010, "I still believe it's a gateway drug," and "legalization is a mistake" – was asked at a town hall in Las Vegas if his position had changed. 

"No, it hasn't changed," Biden said. He explained that although he supports allowing states to determine their own marijuana policies, "the truth of the matter is, there has not been nearly enough evidence acquired as to whether or not it's a gateway drug."
Though Biden opposes legalization on the federal level, he said anyone incarcerated for marijuana should be released and criminal records should be expunged of any marijuana charges. He supports removing marijuana from the list of Schedule 1 drugs, which says it has no medical use, to Schedule III, which would make it easier to research. 
The gateway drug theory says marijuana use can lead to the use of harder drugs such as heroin or cocaine because it fuels an appetite to experiment with other drugs and enters the user in a social circle where other drugs are available. Critics of the theory say myriad factors contribute to addiction and no evidence has been found that pot's effects lead to hard drugs. 
"It's a debate. Before I legalize it nationally, I want to make sure we know a lot more about the science behind it," Biden said. 
He said it "is not irrational to do more scientific investigation to determine, which we have not done significantly enough, whether or not there are any things that relate to whether it's a gateway drug or not."
The National Institute on Drug Abuse agrees with Biden that more study is needed. It said research shows that most users of hard drugs tried marijuana first, but the majority of people who use marijuana don't go on to more dangerous substances. It said another explanation could be that "people who are more vulnerable to drug-taking are simply more likely to start with readily available substances such as marijuana, tobacco or alcohol." 
Biden's stance contrasts with most other Democratic candidates who seek the nomination from voters who heavily favor legalization. According to a poll from the Pew Research Center that was released Thursday, 78% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say marijuana should be legal. 
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont vowed to legalize marijuana by executive order in his first 100 days if he is elected president. Sanders is a co-sponsor of a bill, along with fellow 2020 candidates Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Michael Bennet, that would make marijuana legal and expunge criminal records.
South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who acknowledged last month that he used pot a "handful of times a long time ago," favors total legalization and the expungement of records. He opposes incarceration for the possession of any drug. 
Eleven states and the District of Columbia have approved the use of recreational marijuana, and 33 states allow the use of medical marijuana. Fifteen states have decriminalized marijuana possession. 
Contributing: Trevor Hughes, USA TODAY; The Associated Press
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Joe Biden says marijuana may be 'gateway drug,' opposes legalization

Monday

Unique Mercedes Benz S600 Royale

CC™ CarSpot

Saturday

I'm Black and I'm a member of the 1%

CC™ Infoview

Friday

When two elephants fight: Amazon appeals $10B Pentagon contract won by Microsoft

CC™ BizInfo 

Amazon is protesting the Pentagon’s decision to award a $10 billion cloud-computing contract to Microsoft, citing “unmistakable bias” in the process.

Amazon’s competitive bid for the “war cloud” project drew criticism from President Donald Trump and its business rivals. 

The project, formally called the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, or JEDI, pitted leading tech titans Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle and IBM against one another
In a statement Thursday, Amazon said that “numerous aspects” of the bidding process involved “clear deficiencies, errors, and unmistakable bias.” It did not elaborate.
Amazon added that “it’s important that these matters be examined and rectified.”
Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A Defense Department spokeswoman would only say that the Pentagon won’t speculate on potential litigation.
JEDI will store and process vast amounts of classified data, allowing the U.S. military to use artificial intelligence to speed up its war planning and fighting capabilities.
Amazon was long thought to be the front-runner in the competition for the huge military contract. Its Amazon Web Services division is far ahead of second-place Microsoft in cloud computing, and Amazon has experience handling highly classified government data.
It survived earlier legal challenges after the Defense Department eliminated rival bidders Oracle and IBM and whittled the competition down to the two Seattle area tech giants before choosing Microsoft in late October.
The Pentagon was preparing to make its final decision when Trump publicly waded into the fray in July, saying he had heard complaints about the process and that the administration would “take a very long look.” He said other companies told him that the contract “wasn’t competitively bid.” Oracle, in particular, had unsuccessfully argued that Pentagon officials unfairly favored Amazon for the winner-take-all contract.
Experts had generally expected Amazon to appeal the award, saying it had little to lose. Steven Schooner, a professor of government procurement law at George Washington University, said Trump’s comments were “inappropriate and improvident,” but said it would be a challenge for Amazon to prove the White House applied undue pressure in a way that made a difference. 
Amazon said it filed its protest in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which deals with financial claims against the federal government. 
Source: Associated Press

Thursday

Already with 10 million subscribers and counting, Disney Plus launches and the initial reviews are promising.....

CC™ Entertainment News  

Disney+ (DIS), Disney's new streaming video service, launched on Tuesday. 

On Wednesday, the company announced that 10 million people have signed up for the service. 

This blows expectations out of the water — in a note to clients published in late October, UBS analysts said they expected 4 million people would sign up by the end of this year and 8 million within a year of the Disney+ launch. 

Within five years, Disney’s highest estimates for Disney+ signups is 90 million; in less than 48 hours the company is more than 10% of the way there. 

On its earnings call last week, CEO Bob Iger said Disney+ is, "the culmination of four years of planning, organizational transformation and a lot of hard work, and we're excited to be on the verge of this new era."

The company bought BAMTech to power Disney+. Disney bought 21st Century Fox to bolster its catalogue. And Disney spent hundreds of millions of dollars making content from its premier franchises like Star Wars to make Disney+ more than just a back catalogue at launch.

And although some Disney+ users faced outages on Tuesday, and while Disney's deal with Verizon certainly helped bolster sign-ups on day one, the first 48 hours of Disney+'s life is a no doubt home run for the company.
In response to this news on Wednesday, shares of Disney (DIS) surged 7.2%.
But the real work of building an enduring streaming service begins now.
"I think established IP has a leg up with consumers," Netflix (NFLX) content chief Ted Sarandos said on the company's earnings call last month. "[Consumers] know what they're getting into. There's a lot of pre-built-in excitement. It makes the marketing a little easier."
And while it's not surprising to hear Sarandos somewhat downplay the task of flipping on the switch and bringing the Disney+ monster to life, his point is that the future, enduring success of Disney+ will hinge on what doesn't yet exist. And what popularity really means in the streaming world isn't measured just in box office takes and licensing agreements.
"In this past quarter, we made a movie called ‘Tall Girl,’ a hugely unknown cast, who, in 7 days, grew their social media following into the millions on Netflix and had over 40 million people watch it," Sarandos said on the call. "That's the ability to create a brand almost out of thin air, which, I think, is every bit as valuable as drafting off a bunch of other franchises waiting for them to burn out."
Disney, of course, has a demonstrated track record of doing more or less exactly what Sarandos describes. One day “Toy Story” didn’t exist, the next day it did.
But how franchises are conceived and thrive in the streaming world is different than a world in which viewer experiences are mediated only through liner television and movie theaters. Because streaming is a creation of and for the internet. And “winning” means you play by the internet’s measures of success: if it engages, it is successful.
In recent quarters, Netflix has emphasized at various points the social media impact its original shows and movies had on previously unknown stars. In its 2018 third quarter shareholder letter, for example, Netflix highlighted that “Stranger Things” star Millie Bobby Brown had no Instagram followers in July 2016 — a little over two years later, she had more than 17 million. (Today, Brown has 30.5 million.)
Compared to box office takes, Instagram follower counts can seem like a sort of knock-off measuring tool for a franchises's success. But unlike Disney, Netflix built its business on the internet first. In the Netflix worldview, then, Instagram measures what "the internet" — broadly defined — really thinks of its original content. Again: engagement is success. 

Source: Yahoo Finance

Wednesday

Anthony Joshua advised to go back to basics.....

Anthony Joshua - Photograph: Nick Potts/PA
CC™ Pugilist

Legendary British fighter John Conteh has urged Anthony Joshua to rediscover what makes him a champion ahead of his rematch with Andy Ruiz Jr. 

Anthony Joshua will look to avenge his loss against Andy Ruiz Jr in their rematch on December 7.And Conteh is a man who knows how that feels. He never regained the WBC light-heavyweight title he lost in 1978, despite three attempts.

"A couple of fights I thought I won anyway," he told talkSPORT. "You can only do the best you can. Some get it back and some do not. "The effort he put into putting the muscles on, he should now put into remembering where he was in Watford.

"Don't try and be a scientist or a mathematician, go back to when you were a kid, before you even came into boxing.

"When you were getting out of trouble, avoiding obstacles and overcoming them.

"Go back there. It's not an ego thing I'm talking about. It's about choosing the right way."